Jeremy Hardy, 32, and Hollie Hardy, 35, were arrested Wednesday and both charged with culpable negligence, according to South Daytona police reports.

The couple were attending the Sprint Unlimited race Feb. 15 at the Daytona International Speedway while their 13-year-old son and his friend, also 13, were home baby-sitting the shooter’s 3-year-old brother at the family’s Lemon Road residence, according to the reports.

Police said the Hardy parents left four loaded firearms in the home where they were accessible to the children.

The friend asked the Hardy’s teen son what he would do if someone tried to steal his parent’s car, which is when the Hardy’s son grabbed a .22-caliber rifle from a mounted gun rack and began waving it around, according to the reports.

The friend asked if the gun was real and that’s when the Hardy’s son cocked the forend back and accidentally struck his friend’s elbow with a round, according to the reports. The friend was taken to Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children in Orlando for surgery.

A Fulks Run man faces charges after an accidental shooting in the town Thursday morning. At approximately 10:30 a.m., the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office responded to an accidental shooting. Jeremy Reid, 28, was cleaning a rifle and pointing it at a glass door, and in doing so he pulled the trigger and the weapon fired. Law enforcement says the round traveled through the glass door and hit Gene Bare, 56, of Fulks Run, who was standing outside a storage unit approximately 80 yards away. The round was a 7.62 X 37 SKS rifle round that hit Bare in the upper right arm, and went through the arm and lodged in his chest cavity. Bare was transported by ambulance to J. Frank Hillyard Middle School, and then was flown to U. Va. Medical Center in a medical helicopter. He is in critical condition at this time. Reid faces two charges: a felony charge for shooting from an occupied dwelling and a misdemeanor charge for reckless handling of a firearm.

When the photographer An-Sofie Kesteleyn read about the story in De Volkskrant, the Dutch newspaper she works for, she began making plans for a trip to the American south. "I wanted to go and search for these families who bought guns as presents for their young children," she says. "I began by visiting a rifle range in Ohio, where children are taught to shoot, then travelled down through Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Texas and Louisiana. What I found was that there are loads of children out there in America with their own guns, but not that many parents who are happy to have their kids' portraits taken with those guns."

Todd Francis, 56, did not make a statement in court Wednesday, but a judge shared a few pointed words before sentencing him to four years in prison.

“Loaded weapons and children are not a formula to be trifled with,” said San Diego Superior Court Judge Timothy Walsh, who rejected Francis’ claims that the gun was not loaded when he stored it in the converted garage.

Eric Klyaz was fatally shot June 4 while playing with Francis’ then-9-year-old daughter at the family’s Miramar Ranch home. No adults were home at the time.

Defense lawyer Danna Cotman reiterated Wednesday that Francis’ memory of how the gun was stored is different from the prosecution’s version of events. She said he is deeply remorseful and has taken responsibility in this case by pleading guilty to two counts of felony child endangerment.

“This is not something that will happen again,” Cotman told the judge, adding that even if Francis could legally own a gun (his felony conviction prohibits that) he would not.

She asked the judge to place her client on probation, arguing that he had no previous criminal record and he needed to remain out of custody to provide for his family. Cotman said Francis also wanted to share his story with other gun owners, warning them of the dangers of keeping weapons anywhere children can find them.

Deputy District Attorney Matthew Dix argued that the crime merited more than probation.

“He is being punished the least for his gross negligence,” Dix said of Francis.

Eric’s father, who was ill at the time of the shooting, has since died, the prosecutor said. The mother, Irina Klyaz, declined to make a statement during the sentencing. But her tears spoke volumes.

Francis was handcuffed and taken into custody at the end of the hearing.

Although, I have to admit that actual threats of physical violence from the "pro-gun" crowd don't reflect well on them. And it would really hurt the "gun rights" cause if they decide to "Second Amendment" on of their perceived enemies.

And in the case of Andy Raymond, he is indeed a perceived enemy since this is a person who sells custom assault rifles. In fact, his reason for selling the iP1 was that he thought people should have that option. In fact, he thought more people might warm up to gun ownership if the possibility of accidental injury were reduced.

Of course, that's not how the "pro-gun" side sees this whole thing. Anything which might infringe the right of a disqualified person from access to a firearm is something which should be viewed with suspicion: even if it comes from someone who is so obviously "pro-gun" that you would need to be a total gun loon to not see it.

In fact, Andy may just have learned the difference between a gun loon and a responsible gun owner.

The problem with this topic is that some people are too swayed by their emotions (gun loons) that they cannot tell the difference between reality and their fears.

Calling these laws "get away with murder" may not be as inaccurate as the "pro-gun" side might like to admit with lots of murderers and would be murderers finding that if they say they were scared or protecting their home that they might actually be able to pull a George Zimmerman. Although, it didn't work as well as Michael Dunn had hoped it would in his case: even though he may actually get away with murdering the one person he intended to kill.

It was those stray shots that got him found guilty (attempted murder).

Thankfully, with a lot of states broadening the scope of what counts as “self defense,” several brave Responsible Gun Owners have taken to killing folks for the sake of finding out what kinds of homicide are justified. No applause necessary; these everyday Second Amendment Heroes just see it as their civic duty.

Some people see these wonderful new laws that prove that life is worth less than property and that the concept of "right to life" by not having life arbitrarily taken is something that means they can see if they can indeed "get away with murder".

Wonkette's conclusion:

And so our glorious experiment in ground-standing continues; future cases will no doubt help us gain a better understanding of just when it becomes OK to purposefully set a trap for a human being you want to kill. We bet there will be lots of volunteers from the Responsible Gun Owning community to serve as the armed portion of those experiments, and tough shit for those who get killed, because they never should have been there in the first place.

These laws prove that the US is in no way a "Christian Nation" which believes in the sanctity of life.

Gun buybacks may not be a solution to really make a dent in violent crime, but they can have an impact on another problem, accidental shootings. Those deadly tragedies are on the decline according to experts, and we’re putting the reasons why In Focus.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

We learned that a majority — not a large majority, but a majority — of gun dealers and pawn brokers are in favor of comprehensive background checks.

Do you know why some dealers supported background checks and others didn't?

There is a sense in the country that retailers who have lots of traced guns [i.e. guns that show up at crime scenes] are themselves bad guys, and I just don't believe that is always the case.

Retailers who had higher frequencies of attempted straw purchases, higher frequencies of attempted off-the-books-purchases, were more in favor of comprehensive background checks. They're in the business. They know that when they say "no" to somebody, that guy is just going to go somewhere else to someone who says, "yes," and they don't want it to happen. They said "no," so they want the system to say, "No."

One of the policy proposals you've been looking at is whether people with a history of alcohol abuse should also be banned from purchasing firearms. Is this ever going to be a realistic policy — that two DUIs could mean that someone could lose their legal right to buy guns?

Yes. Last year, I floated the idea to the California legislature, and the legislature passed it. The governor vetoed it, or we'd have it now. His veto message said there's not enough evidence. There's tons of evidence of alcohol as a risk factor of violent activity. I think he meant evidence specific to gun owners. We've started one study, and are in the process of another. We'll come back with the evidence.

Sheriff's deputies in Livingston County say a 30-year-old man is facing reckless endangerment charges after an accidental shooting in Caledonia on Saturday.

Investigators say Kenneth Rogers accidently shot 28-year-old Jeffrey Wilkin in the face with a rifle that contained bird shot. Wilkin was taken to an area hospital with non-life threatening injures and is expected to survive.

Deputies say both men were drinking prior to the shooting.

Rogers is charged with reckless endangerment. He is being held in the Livingston County Jail in lieu of $1,000 cash bail.

Is reckless endangerment even a felony? If so, maybe he can plea bargain it down a bit.

"Arms in
the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the
defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self
defense."

TRUTH: A version of this was even used by the NRA for several years. Because what Adams—federalist, signer of the Sedition Acts, and perennial pessimist about human nature—really liked was armed mobs. In fact, this is a bastardization of a longer quote in defense of the Constitution,
which says something very different—namely, that armed untrained
citizens in mass posed a threat to liberty and constitutional
government:

To
suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual
discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of
towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every
constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed
by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law
of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the
laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

Abigail Adams wrote about her anxieties for Massachusetts and her disappointment in the behavior of
some of its inhabitants n a letter to Thomas Jefferson from 29 January 1787:

With regard to the tumults in my Native State which you inquire about, I wish I could
say that report had exaggerated them, it is too true Sir that they have been carried to so
allarming a Height as to stop the courts of justice in several Counties. Ignorant, restless
desperadoes, without conscience or principals, have led a deluded multitude to follow their
standard, under pretence of grievances which have no existence but in their own imaginations.
(3)

According to Abigail Adams, the grievances of those closing the courts in
Massachusetts

Abigail snappishly dismissed the demands and grievances of these "mobish insurgents" who were "sapping the foundation, and destroying the whole fabrick" of the state:

Some of them were crying out for a paper currency, some for an equal distribution of
property, some were for annihilating all debts, others complained that the Court of common pleas
was unnecessary that the sitting of the general court in Boston was a grievance. By this list
you will see the materials which compose this rebellion and the necessity there is of the wisest
and more vigorus measures to quell & suppress it…(4)

She firmly believed that "these people make[?] only a small part of the
State." Time and attention to the true causes of the problems by "the more
Sensible and judicious" residents would resolve the situation.

Benjamin Franklin had no sympathy for "the mad attempts to overthrow" the Massachusetts Constitution
or "the wickedness and ignorance of a few, who, while they enjoy it, are insensible of its
excellence." Franklin, like
Samuel Adams,
had little patience for those who he believed sought to undermine or
overthrow a government constituted by and for the people.

"There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of
government? An institution to make people do their duty. A government
leaving it to a man to do his duty, or not, as he pleases, would be a
new species of government, or rather no government at all."

I know at least one of you doesn't understand the meaning of this passage, but I will quote it again anyway:

Whatever theoretical merit there may be
to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against
dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of
the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.–Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

I think Abagail Adams pretty much sums up the situation in regard to using the Second Amendment to justify insurrection:

Ignorant, restless
desperadoes, without conscience or principals, have led a deluded multitude to follow their
standard, under pretence of grievances which have no existence but in their own imaginations.

Fresh off a speech to the National Rifle Association's annual meeting, former - and potentially future - GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum praised a controversial new gun law in Georgia.The bill, signed by Gov. Nathan Deal last week, will allow Georgians to carry guns into some bars, churches and government buildings. Critics have slammed the law, calling it the "guns everywhere bill," but Santorum defended the legislation Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," arguing that if criminals aren't sure whether potential victims or bystanders are armed, they likely won't take the risk. "I think people do analyze the situation and if they want to accomplish something, they want to kill a lot of people, they're not going to go someplace where someone will shoot back," the former Pennsylvania senator said.

OK, I am politically green. In other words, if I go for a single issue: it's the environment. I have been active in environmentalism since I was a kid. I love the outdoors, but does the NRA really love the outdoors as much as they claim?

The National Rifle Association has long claimed to represent America’s
hunters and shooters in the fight to protect one of America’s oldest
traditions as the self-proclaimed "largest pro-hunting organization in the world" The NRA’s bylaws even include an article setting a core goal "to promote and
defend hunting…as a viable and necessary method of fostering the
propagation, growth and conservation…of our renewable wildlife
resources". But it turns out that its by-laws are just empty rhetoric.

A report by the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) showed that the NRA gave much more money to and gave much higher ratings to politicians who:

In 2001, opposed the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which was
defeated even though it would have protected millions of acres of our
best hunting land.

In 2005, tried to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of
public land to “corporate interests at prices far below market value,”
as stated in the report. “While conservation groups across America came
out against the (sale of public land), the NRA stayed silent.”

An annual survey conducted by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is
the best source we have to judge the NRA's political leanings It was the primarily source used by ASHA to come to its
conclusions. On the front page of the report, in fact, AHSA states that
the NRA gave campaign contributions to 52 of the 53 members of Congress
who received a zero rating from LCV for their conservation voting
records.

In 2012, six oil and gas companies contributed a total of between
$1.3 million and $5.6 million to the NRA, according to CAP. (The
companies are Clayton Williams Energy, J.L. Davis Gas Consulting, Kamps
Propane, Barrett Brothers Oil and Gas, Saulsbury Energy Services, and KS
Industries.)

The NRA's heftiest energy contributor by far is Clayton Williams
Energy. CWE is the NRA's largest corporate donor outside of the firearm
industry, and one of its six largestoverall donors.
The publicly owned Texas energy company has donated no less than $2
million to the NRA in the past four years: at least $1 million in 2010,
according to an SEC filing, and at least $1 million in 2012, according to the NRA. In 2010, CEO, president, director, and board chairman Clayton Williams Jr. told a meeting of oil drillers that he'd given more than $3 million to the NRA. In 2013, Williams and his wife Modesta were inducted into the NRA's Golden Ring of Freedom, a small circle of major donors. The couple was celebrated in a 10-page feature story in a 2011 issue of the NRA's Ring of Freedom magazine.

The reality is that the NRA is out of line with America’s dedicated conservation
organizations. The nation’s biggest gun lobby
gave $4,085,277 to support the 193 members of Congress who received
poor conservation ratings from the LCV and only $390,897, 10 times less,
to the 245 members of Congress who have received high conservation
ratings.

Additionally, the NRA's lobbying on bills detrimental to the environment contradicts the express commitment of of its lobbying arm to "be involved in any issue that directly or indirectly affects firearms ownership and use. These involve such topics as hunting and access to hunting lands [and] wilderness and wildlife conservation." CAP's report also cites several polls showing that preservation of wildlife is important to most sportsmen: A 2012 poll found that two-thirds of sportsmen want to maintain current conservation levels and oppose "allowing private companies to develop public lands when it would limit the public's enjoyment of—or access to—these lands."

Additionally, a 2013 survey of hunters and anglers, nearly 75 percent of respondents opposed selling public lands to help reduce the deficit. On the other hand, there is a big push to sell public lands from the Libertarian segment of the republican party.

It would seem that the NRA is working against the interest of hunters and sportsmens despite its by-laws to the contrary. In fact, I would say that the NRA works against the interests of responsible gun owners--if there are still very many left.

Actually, I haven't seen the NRA point to any actual legislation they have supported which would give any credence to their claim of being "pro-conservation". In fact, I have seen more destruction of the US countryside in the past 40 odd years. It seems to me that if the NRA were as "pro-environment" as it is "pro-gun" that there wouldn't be a problem with development and the US would not have decaying cities in the same way that guns have become an epidemic health crisis.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Political donations to groups supporting gun control have overtaken
money raised by the National Rifle Association and its allies in the 16
months since the Newtown school shooting, according to latest filings
with the Federal Election Commission.
Though campaign finance
experts say officially-declared money is the tip of the iceberg for both
sides, the limited public figures available suggest recent efforts to
build grassroots organisations to rival the political clout of gun
rights advocates may be further advanced than previously thought.

I would guess that the relaxation of firearms laws in the US is finally having a well deserved backlash.

A Minnesota man charged with fatally shooting two teenagers who broke into his home has waived his right to testify at his trial in Morrison County.

Byron Smith told Judge Douglas Anderson that he had discussed the matter with his lawyer and opted not to take the stand.

The 65-year-old Little Falls man is on trial for first-degree premeditated murder. Smith claims he was defending himself and feared for his life after several break-ins.

The jury on Monday heard from Smith's brother, Bruce Smith, and two of the defendant's neighbors, 16-year-old Dylan Lange, and his mother, Kathleen Lange. They all testified that they know Smith to be an honest man.

Byron Smith has lived with the Lange family since the fatal shooting on Thanksgiving Day 2012.

This is a right which asserts that a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of a country where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others, and to leave that Country and return at any time. Some immigrants' rights advocates assert that human beings have a fundamental human right to mobility not only within a country but between nations.

It's probably the only thing I agree with Libertarians. People should be able to live wherever they want.

Never heard of this right? You seem to talk a lot about rights, but somehow you missed this one? I think somebody may have mentioned this right without understanding it, but that would be typical for that person as he doesn't really understand as much as he thinks he does.

Yes, it's actually in the US Constitution, but I could guess that you wouldn't know it since you are too fixated on the misinterpreted portion called the Second Amendment.

This right is found in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."

It is a right was has been around for a long time. In England, in 1215, the right to travel was mentioned in Article 42 of the Magna Carta:

It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.

At one time, passports were not obligatory, but they have become part of the modern world since the 14-18 (First World) War. I think they are kind of fun, but I miss the old blue British Passports which have been replaced by the standardised EU passports.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights incorporates this right into treaty law:

(1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within
that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to
choose his residence.

(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

(3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any
restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect
national security, public order (ordre publique), public health or
morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the
other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Technically, Palestinian refugees, especially those who were born in the country now called Israel are technically entitled to move back to their homeland under this charter--so, that means that the State of Israel violates the human rights of Palestinians to return to their homeland.

Of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of those documents promulgated by the Evil United Nations (which pays at least one blogger here's salary).

Free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Union. It is found in Article 45 of that Treaty which states:

Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.

Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any
discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States
as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and
employment.

It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:

(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;

(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;

(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in
accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of
that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;

(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been
employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in
implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.

The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

The European Union has adopted a Directive on the right of citizens of the Union to move and reside freely within the Member States to implement this section of the treaty[1], which is a source of great consternation to people in countries such as Britain who find they now have people wanting to move to their country from the former Eastern Bloc nations which are part of the EU (e.g., Poland and Romania).

The right of free movement has actually been around for some time (subject to people's ability to pay to move). Scholars have attempted to base a universal "right to move" on several
philosophical grounds, including the idea of a common ownership of the
earth, a natural right of movement existing prior to the advent of
nation states, an ethics of cosmopolitanism, and utilitarian notions of
the benefits of immigration to both receiving countries and immigrants.

There are a few reasons that I mention this right. a couple are personal, as one of my passports is up for renewal (I value the right of freedom of movement above all others due to the next reason). I also value the ability to get out of Dodge should whatever place I reside happen to become unlivable: in the case of the US due to pseudopatriots who would plunge their nation into war. That's actually quite a good reason in that people in the US are idiots who, while talking peace, are all too willing to plunge their nation into a war. Fortunately for them, they have been able to stay out of the way for all but a few of their wars.

Unfortunately, they tend to forget the ravages that their nation has suffered because of war.

Anyway, unlike the fictitious or misinterpreted rights I see mentioned here (e.g. "gun rights"), this one is one with serious historic, legal, and ethical bases.

That said, there is one thing that General Patton said which I can agree with and that is:

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.

Trust me, if you want to start a war, there will be enough people who will be willing to make sure you die for your country.

Thinking about this after I wrote it, that was sort of a flip conclusion, but I do write about a lot of complicated topic and try to simplify them. But, this is one with a lot of ramifications: especially for modern US society. For example, the way that people dislike Hispanic immigration while neglecting that most of the Southwestern United States (at least Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California) were part of Mexico prior to their conquest by war. Like the Palestinians, those people have a right to access to their homelands and travel to visit their families. Similarly, the Native Americans have a right to their homeland under this principle.

As I said, the US has a belligerent streak which has caused it more problems than they realise. And will continue to cause it problems as long as it is not addressed.

[1] European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC
of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family
members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member
States

In Indianapolis Watts had a run-in with howling rage harpy Dana Loesch, of whom she has run afoul for a variety of reasons, including apparently calling Loesch a “paid shill” of Magpul Industries, the gun manufacturer that fled Colorado last year after that state imposed some new gun-control laws. Loesch claims she has never been employed by Magpul and has been after Watts for months demanding an apology for this vicious lie. What yr Wonkette finds entertaining about this little argument is that last summer we wrote about a rally Magpul participated in just before Colorado’s new laws went into effect, at which the company handed out hundreds of its 30-round magazines that were about to become illegal.

Magpul flew these magazines to the rally by helicopter, along with a noted anti-gun-control advocate by the name of…Dana Loesch! Dana even took two of Magpul’s magazines home with her and named them “Piers” and “Morgan.” Most parents would just get their kids a couple of goldfish.

Anyway, we suppose any appearance fee paid to Dana came from the rally’s organizers and not from Magpul. Or maybe Dana didn’t get an appearance fee at all so she could remain a pure and uncorrupted spokeswoman for her civil right to stroke a gun anywhere and anytime she wants. Yr Wonkette is of the opinion that flying into a gun rally with several crates of Magpul products, speaking at that rally and then taking two of the products home and bragging about them meets the definition of the word “shilling.” And also that Dana Loesch is dumber than a bag of gun hammers.

So you hang in there, Shannon Watts and Moms Demand Action. If you’ve got the gun nuts frothing at the mouth this hard, you must be doing something right.

The husband of a 46-year-old woman shot in the buttocks at their home this afternoon was charged with negligent assault.
Kent Scott told Springfield police he picked up a backpack from the floor when a handgun fell out. As he reached to pick it up, it discharged, Springfield police Sgt. Doug Pergram said.
Kimberly Scott was hit in the left buttock, and the bullet was lodged in her right buttock near her hip, he said.
"It was an accidental gunshot wound," Pergram said.
The couple was not arguing, and drugs or alcohol was not involved, he said.
Kent Scott was processed and released from the Clark County Jail, Pergram said.

Noble County Sheriff's Department officers responding to a report of a shooting about 12:30 p.m. Saturday on CR 1100 N. in Ligonier found 7-year-old Jaylin Miller dead of a gunshot wound, according to a statement from the sheriff's department.

An investigation revealed that Jaylin and his brother had gone outside to shoot ground moles when the gun was discharged by Jaylin's brother, striking and killing him, police said.

The Noble County Coroner said the shooting was accidental, and the boys' parents were on the scene when it happened.

Oh, the parents were on the scene and it was just an accident, no problem then.

The National Rifle Association is holding their annual conference in Indianapolis this year, and Wayne LaPierre is sounding more unhinged than ever. He sounds almost as paranoid as our quail-hunting former vice-president.

Perhaps the nation’s most visible gun rights advocate, LaPierre drew a stark picture of the dangers that he said plague the country and argued the government has failed to protect its citizens.

“We know that in the world that surrounds us there are terrorists, home invaders, drug cartels, car jackers, ‘knock-out’ gamers, rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse as a society that sustains us all,” he said.

“So I ask you this afternoon: do you trust this government really to protect you and your family?” he continued. “We’re on our own. That’s a certainty.”

LaPierre got so worked up there that basic grammar broke down for him. I don’t know quite what to make from such heated rhetoric. Is it some kind of sign of desperation? Do the people who travel to NRA conferences really need to be sustained on this level of high-octane bugnuttery?

Notice the incredible inversion of reality, where campus killers and shopping mall killers and airport killers are less a threat because they’ve legally purchased semiautomatic weapons despite being insane than they are an excuse for the rest of us to purchase semiautomatic weapons for our own defense.

Notice that the argument is not that we need to be armed to serve in a well-regulated militia but to prepare for the complete breakdown of modern civilization.

We must be prepared for “vicious waves of chemicals” that will no doubt be unleashed on the unincorporated hamlets of red state America rather than in our densely-populated cities.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- On April 7 2014 Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) made “backdoor [gun] registration” possible by rejecting an amendment to SB 377 which would have required records of gun purchases and transfers to be destroyed “within two weeks.”

The amendment applied specifically to guns a dealer seeks “to purchase, trade, or transfer…from a non-dealer.” Personal information and identification is shared in this exchange to verify that the firearms have not “been reported lost or stolen.”

The amendment assured gun owners that if the gun had not been reported lost or stolen their personal information would be destroyed “within two weeks.”

According to the NRA-ILA, McAuliffe has substituted his own amendment to SB 377: one which “would mandate that…consent forms [containing the personal information] would be kept by the dealer for at least 90 days with no requirement to destroy them ever.”

The governor’s amendment “creates backdoor registration of those seeking to sell, trade, or transfer their lawfully owned firearms to a gun dealer.”

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (R) holds a gun given to him by U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell during the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 6, 2014. McConnell is one of many Republicans planning to address the National Rifle Association at its annual meeting on Friday.

The lone Democrat slated to address the organization is Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. of Milwaukee County. Clarke has won headlines for ads that have called guns a “great equalizer” and suggested that “simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.”

While the slate of speakers at NRA events has always dominated by conservatives – many seeking the group's support for a bid for higher office – it hasn’t always been free of Democrats elected to federal office.

In 2011, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin spoke to the NRA’s “Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum,” even plugging the famed political ad depicting him shooting a cap-and-trade bill with a rifle. (Manchin later earned the ire of the organization for working on background check legislation.)

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson submitted a video for presentation at an annual meeting in 2007, during his failed presidential run. The same year, powerful Democrat Rep. John Dingell was praised as a “longtime visionary statesman” as he was introduced to the crowd. Now-retired Oklahoma Democrat Rep. Dan Boren was also regular presence at annual NRA events.

The dwindling of Democratic speakers is reflected in the powerful gun lobby’s political giving as well, which has fluctuated over the last two decades.

So far this cycle, the organization has donated funds to just nine House Democrats and no Senate Democrats (a total of $12,000) compared to contributions totaling almost $240,000 to 151 Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s just four percent to the president’s party.

The Quiet Mike Blog has yet another nail in the coffin of the gun lobby's most prominent Bullshit artist. In fact, I'm really surprised his career hasn't taken the path of Michael Bellesisles except that he is on the right.

It seems that the right believes that if you keep repeating lies they somehow become truths, but there may be something to that given what the Supreme Court has done in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

Anybody who has looked into Lott knows he is the pro-gun equivalent of Michael Bellesisles (except I think Bellesisles was sort of onto something), which the Quiet Mike Blog points out:

Critics of Lott’s research are plentiful, although he dismisses them as “Liberal.” So it’s important to note this blistering rebuke by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin:

“.”“Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer
crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He
has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the
survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents
long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can’t
identify or produce. Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is
still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous
scrap of paper proving the survey’s existence, such as the research
protocol or survey instrument.”

“By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But
Lott’s invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other
scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to
deceive to protect and promote his work.”

John
Lott is quick to respond to his critics, this writer included. But he
remains unable to definitively address the specific problem of his
questioned data. On twitter, he produced these links to absolve himself
of these issues.

The question remains as to why rubbish like John Lott's and the rest of the pseudoscholars has remained unchallenged? Why is the "pro-gun" side afraid of research (or is that research adverse?)?

John R. Lott Jr. is the key to defeating the gun lobbies. His data is
either deliberately misleading or subject to ignorant methodology. It
has been repeatedly defended only with his own responses. If Lott is
held accountable for his mistakes and mistruths, gun lobby talking
points would get their volume turned down. It will be fully revealed how
baseless many gun lobby arguments are. They are motivated by what they
want, not how things are, and certainly aren’t interested in the greater
good of the country.

The short form--don't call people "sheeple" if you are unwilling, or just plain unable to research and discover the facts for yourself.

And don't try to persuade someone of something which they can spot as bullshit.

You only come off as idiots--no matter how much you try to soothe yourselves into thinking you're the "intelligentsia".